tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post113951462841702080..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: parshat Beshalach: Az Yashir: Use of the Imperfect to Designate Desirejoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-44160269689223964602008-01-15T11:22:00.000-05:002008-01-15T11:22:00.000-05:00From Rashi to Bereishis 24:45 it appears that futu...From Rashi to Bereishis 24:45 it appears that future tense can be used to signify past action, even when not habitual.<BR/><BR/>This seems to create a contradiction between Rashi there and here, which some of the commentators endeavor to explain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-38661523237412433132007-02-02T11:46:00.000-05:002007-02-02T11:46:00.000-05:00Ah, but we do.
Besides the fact that they’re both...Ah, but we do. <br />Besides the fact that they’re both Torah and both emes, the fact of two well-argued positions often indicates important multivalent or polysemous, (or sometimes even polyvocal) possibility and intention in a Pasuk. The two opinions about the pasuk are opinions, but more significantly as a pirush, is the fact that there are two opinions. The “modern” (19th century) approach (Malbim, Ayeles HaShachar, etc.) is that the fact of two legitimate lexical readings (or parsings) argues for two legitimate meanings. The “post-modern” approach would be: what is the significance of the multivalence itself read synchronically, syncretically, as a signifier, as a level of meaning. (The deliberate (semantic) ambiguity of Moshe’s “Vayetzei el Echov” comes to mind (who’s his Echov? Egyptians? (Ibn Ezra), Yidden? (Rashi, Seforno), or does Moshe have to struggle with deciding who to “follow”, Ibn Ezra or Seforno?). Examples of such cases (lexical, syntactic, semantic, genetive, exegetic, chulei . . ) abound, Baruch HaShem, on ParshaBlog . . .Abbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07391623051340939164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-51678545157211036722007-01-30T16:14:00.000-05:002007-01-30T16:14:00.000-05:00This isn't halacha, you don't have to "follow" any...This isn't halacha, you don't have to "follow" any particular view. You can instead appreciate the wisdom in each of the views.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1139592638510188902006-02-10T12:30:00.000-05:002006-02-10T12:30:00.000-05:001) Az Yashir: Is there a distinction then between ...1) Az Yashir: Is there a distinction then between intentionality, the subjunctive, and the constant present? Do they overlap?<BR/><BR/>2) Azi VeZimras in Rashi:<BR/>The problem with the [missing] possesive in “zimras” in, let’s say, Onkelos: “Tokfi Vetushbehati”: Unlike the ibn Ezra style solution of borrowing it from the Yod in Azi as a bi-directional double-duty governing Os HaShimush (“Moshech Atzmo VeAcher Imo”), R. Reuvein Margolios (HaMikra VeHaMesorah: “Midat Oleh VeYored”) suggests a bi-directional Yod borrowed from the beginning of the next word “Kah” ( a Yod, not a Kuf . . ). This elegant solution ( I think it solves as a sentence, the next problem that Rashi himself has to deal with: the VaV phrase of “Vayehi li”. ) now brings to a new level of multivalence. Rashi says zimras is “cutting down”; Onkelos says it means “singing”. Which of these great commentaries and their great arguments should we follow?<BR/><BR/>The previous Pasuk is: “ASHIRAH LaHaShem”; the pasuk that follows Azi VeZimras” is “HaShem ish MILCHMAH.” Thus it would be a bidirectional deliberate polysemous use of both senses of “Zimras” as a parallelism (I don’t want to mention the name of this type of dual parallelism: it’s the name of a two-faced Avodah Zarah . . .). There is is a classic example in Shir HaShirim: “HaNitzanim nireu baaretz/Eis HAZAMIR higia`/vekol hator nishma` beartzeinu” where Zamir can refer to both harvesting (nitzanim) or forwards to singing (kol hator).<BR/><BR/>Good Shabbos<BR/>Nachman LevineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com